compare_rule_versions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent / openWorld, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it explains HTML fallback on extraction failure ('원문 실패 시 HTML 대체 여부') and that specific extraction diagnostics are surfaced. It does not mention rate limits or compare cost for large documents, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences front-load the core comparison scope, then fallback/diagnostics, then the default note — no filler. Slightly dense Korean phrasing but every sentence carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary; the description instead covers what domains are compared, failure fallback, and the default comparison target. Adequate for a 6-parameter read-only tool, though it could say more about applying article/max_changes scoping.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the to_history_id default. The description's only parameter note ('to_history_id 생략 시 최신 개정본') restates the schema rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('비교합니다') and a specific resource (조문·별표, 표의 셀·병합 구조, 그림 파일) of the original HWP, which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_rule_content or list_rule_history. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the compared scope is concrete enough to disambiguate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only routing-like guidance is the default note that omitting to_history_id compares against the latest revision, which is useful but about parameter behavior rather than when to choose this tool over list_rule_history or get_rule_content. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.